Ill. Republicans Demand Chairman’s Resignation

Remember Pat Brady, the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party who came out in support of marriage equality in that state? The wingnuts remember him and they’re demanding that he resign his position over his treacherous betrayal of their bigoted values.

Still, many in the beleaguered party have turned on party chairman.

“Pat Brady is a total disgrace,” said Bobbie Peterson, a Republican state central committeewoman from Beecher, Ill. according to WBEZ. “He’s a pretty face for TV. He can speak well. Period. But what’s coming out of his mouth is not what the Illinois Republican party is about.”

The Illinois Republican Party’s State Central Committee may have the votes needed to force Brady’s resignation, according to conservative blog the Illinois Review. In Grundy County, roughly 60 miles southwest of Chicago, GOP leaders have called for Brady’s resignation, along with state Sen. Jim Oberweis, a GOP committeeman from west suburban Sugar Grove.

“I was shocked,” Sen. Oberweis said to WBEZ. “Very surprised. Did not expect that and didn’t know why he would have done that.”

Anti-gay group the National Organization for Marriage has also stepped up to the plate in its attempt to block a bipartisan effort to bring marriage equality to Illinois. NOM has called for Brady’s resignation and said its PAC would spend $250,000 to defeat any Republican that votes in favor of same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Yeah, how can they pander to the bigots for donation if Brady is going to stand up for equality?

As I said when this first came out, I suspected he was not long for his position because the grass-roots Republicans/ Tea Partiers wouldn’t abide it.

The real question is whether or not the saner Republicans who want to win elections rather than to be ideologically “pure” will realize that they have to figure out how to dismount the tiger.

John Hinkle

NOM has called for Brady’s resignation and said its PAC would spend $250,000 to defeat any Republican that votes in favor of same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Nice threat. If you can’t win people over with ideas, resort to strong arming.

Alverant

Remember when the GOP was for individual freedoms and no government interference in our personal lives?

Me neither.

shouldbeworking

This canadian would like to know if GOP stands for God Over People?

Michael Heath

Alverant writes:

Remember when the GOP was for individual freedoms and no government interference in our personal lives?

Me neither.

Than I suggest reading some history. What you’ll find is that while no party was ever close to perfect, the GOP once held the high ground over the Democrats on some of the key issues, e.g., the Civil War, the Jim Crow era.

anubisprime

Surprising that anyone of integrity…or at least a little savvy… would be batting for the GOP anyway especially the armed wing of the tea party goons.

Still seems rather ‘helpful’ if they do tear themselves apart cos their innate bigotry trumps reality.

Let them choose another deeply pious bigot that is nearer their taste…anyone bigoted and dumb enough to circle jerk them into righteous orgasm will not appeal to the American public by default, they did not exactly convince anyone last time at the polls…methinks that that was an election that the Democrats would lose rather then win anyway…but even so the GOP did not get the numbers despite the lunatics they squabbled over in the primaries, that is important in elections for the other side!

So lurching even more to the right of Ghengis will avail them no particular good…they shall not pass!

Thing is the more they shuffle and edge out over the precipice on such a wonky thin and brittle twig of personal ignorance the more convinced they will become that armed insurrection is god’s will!

paulg

@5 Pfft. While you may be technically correct, I think Alverant was correct in general. Maybe if he’d said “the type of people who are in the GOP today”. I saw a pathetic meme being passed around Facebook that had a black guy defending his Republicanism because he remembers history and that Democrats used to be for slavery. Fucking stupid, they wouldn’t be Democrats today. Those labels are meaningless in a historical context. The same kinds of people are still opposed to each other over the same types of issues, just calling themselves different things.

markr1957

#5 Michael Heath – therein lies the GOP problem. The last time they were electable has become a notable historical moment, but to survive they need to be electable now, not 50 years ago.

harold

The real question is whether or not the saner Republicans who want to win elections rather than to be ideologically “pure” will realize that they have to figure out how to dismount the tiger.

The only way they can do that is to completely abandon everything they currently stand for.

There were a bunch of crises in the US between 1968 and 1979, some of which are barely remembered now – “stagflation”, early outsourcing of industry (container ships were a big factor), major environmental problems, the “oil crisis”, the Vietnam war, massively rising crime in cities, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc. The default position of the time was economic liberalism, so the crises challenged the popularity of traditional liberalism, not in a rational way but in the emotional way that unexpected bad news always challenges those in control.

In that environment, two very unpopular groups of people – bigots and supporters of harsh, punitive economic policy – were able to team up and gain power.

Those groups are now perceived as being largely the same, but they weren’t at the time – most bigots used to support their own economic interests. FDR won some southern states with 95% plus of the vote.

Individually, neither of those groups can win. You can’t say “I support Paul Ryan economics but I don’t oppose gay marriage or contraception, or use coded racism” and win. Paul Ryan economics isn’t popular enough to win on its own. (Other than a few congressional districts dominated by “gated communities”.)

Take away the pandering to bigotry and Paul Ryan is just a Democrat on social issues, with an economic platform that is extremely unpopular in isolation.

The “bigot plus self-absorbed Randians” party can only win if ALL the bigots and Randians simultaneous support it. And even then it struggles.

Stop pandering to bigots, and many bigots will form their own party and/or start grudgingly voting for Democrats. Or just stop voting.

Robber baron economics was always on the ballot, and always will be, but post-1932 it couldn’t win without strong working class bigot support. If it loses that, it won’t be able to win again.

Crudely Wrott

I remember Pat Brady. He drove a Jeep in the Roy Rogers Show back in the fifties. In fact, I saw him live in Madison Square Garden at a rodeo my father took me to in 1955.

The dude could cut some doughnuts!

What? Not the same guy? Sorry . . .

http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

Paul Ryan is just a Democrat on social issues,

Um, Mr. Fetuses Have Rights is a Democrat on social issues?

Say again?

harold

d.c. wilson –

Um, Mr. Fetuses Have Rights is a Democrat on social issues?

Say again?

Your comments are usually intelligent, so I’ll have to assume that this misunderstanding was a one time glitch. I’ve reread my original comment and I’m convinced that the meaning is clear.

I wrote…

Take away the pandering to bigotry and Paul Ryan is just a Democrat on social issues, with an economic platform that is extremely unpopular in isolation.

“Take away the pandering to bigotry”.

Take away the red suit, the sleigh, the elves, and the reindeer, and Santa Claus is just another fat guy. Take away one part of something and it isn’t there anymore.

Paul Ryan does pander to bigotry but if you took away the pandering to bigotry then he would just be a Democrat on social issues with an unpopular economic agenda.

Republicans would have to pander to bigotry or give up both the bigotry and the stupid economic ideas, to get elected. Therefore if they were to give up the pandering to bigotry they’d have to give up everything they stand for (or get as many votes as the Libertarian party).

I had meant to add this –

It’s important to remember that the “bigotry” part of the Republican agenda is FAR MORE POPULAR than the Ayn Rand economics part. If they were to switch to “We decided that we don’t hate gays, women, brown people, and foreigners after all but we still want to take away your basic programs”, they’d be annihilated.

If they were to switch to “We decided to support a strong safety net but we still hate gays, women, brown people, and foreigners”, they’d also lose some voters, but they’d lose far fewer.

However, neither the bigotry nor the Randian economics is popular enough, on its own, to win without the other.

Nice polar bear picture, by the way.

Nibi

Ill. Republicans …

I see what you did there.

http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

harold:

I guess it depends on whether you think that when Ryan sponsors a fetal rights bill or a law that would enable a rapist to sue his victim for visitation rights, he actually believes in that crap or if he is just pandering to the base.